Feedback and opinions on the Needleman case

8/30/2005 – As you probably know that Gastón Needleman, the chess prodigy from Argentina, who was eliminated in the tiebreaks of the Continental Championship, was given a special ticket to the World Cup by FIDE President Ilyumzhinov. Since publishing the story last week we have received a lot of critical feedback, arguing both sides of the issue.

Find the right combination! ChessBase 15 program + new Mega Database 2019 with 7.6 million games and more than 70,000 master analyses. Plus ChessBase Magazine (DVD + magazine) and CB Premium membership for 1 year!

Editorial remarks

Our initial
article on the tiebreak of the Continental Championship in Buenos Aires,
which appeared on August 19, was written by Carlos A. Ilardo and originally
published in the national newspaper La Nacion a day earlier. It
described how one player from the seven who tied for second in the main event
needed to be eliminated, since there were only six tickets available for the
FIDE world cup. Of the seven players six were experienced GMs and one a 15-year-old
boy who had surprised everyone by keeping up with players in the main event.
Gastón Needleman, who had gained international attention, was duly eliminated in the
tiebreaks, and the story of the GMs allegedly ganging up against him was told
in the Argentinian newspaper.

The reaction to Ilardo's story was swift and emotional. We received many dozens
of very critical letters from our readers. At the FIDE Congress in Dresden
the matter was discussed at all levels, and in the end, as we
reported, the Governor of the province of San Luis, which will be staging
the next FIDE world championship, appealed to President Ilyumzhinov to give
Needleman a free ticket to the tournament many felt he had so unfairly missed.
The FIDE President, feeling the mood of the delegates (and chess enthusiasts
all over the world), complied.

So all's well that ends well? Not quite. A number of GMs, especially some
of those directly involved in the Buenos Aires tiebreak, felt that their reputation
had been tarnished by Ilardo's article – and by the fact that ChessBase
had published a translation of it. "To be honest, I am a little disappointed
with the way you handled this Continental Zonal tie-break affair," wrote
one. "We had to pay our own way to the event and now get accused of ridiculous
things by some journalist who printed his story in an Argentinian newspaper.
I think that simply re-printing that article by ChessBase was a bad way to
handle things, as it clearly presented the grandmasters in a false light and
did serious damage to our personal image in the chess world." Another
GM demanded an editorial apology for the damage done to the grandmasters' chess
reputations, "which is incidentally perhaps one of the most important
and valuable things we possess".

After reading the arguments on both sides, and especially the very sanguine
views of Gastón Needleman himself, we come to the conclusion that there
are indeed two sides to the story. Ilardo portrayed the one side with South
American passion, and apparently under the influence of the booing spectators
he had just seen at the tiebreak, and the disappointment he felt that the young
Argentinian star had been eliminated in this way.

On the other hand chess professionals have eloquently argued that it is perfectly
normal to act pragmatically when so much is at stake. In this case, in view
of the late hour and the exhaustion of the players, it was natural to seek
to gain the minimum number of points required for qualification against the
player who could be expected to put up the least resistance. This is reflected
in the cross table. In the GM vs GM games there was just one decided encounter,
Granda vs Felgaer – all other games were drawn. In the GM vs Needleman
games there was just one draw, and all the others were decided. Just glancing
at the final table leaves chess fans with an uncomfortable feeling, which is
not assuaged by the pragmatic arguments of the professionals.

No

Name

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Pts

1

GRANDA, Julio

½

½

1

½

½

1

4

2

KAMSKY, Gata

½

½

½

½

½

1

3.5

3

VESCOVI, Giovanni

½

½

½

½

½

1

3.5

4

FELGAER, Ruben

0

½

½

½

½

1

3

5

ONISCHUK, Alexander

½

½

½

½

½

½

3

6

MILOS, Gilberto

½

½

½

½

½

0

2.5

7

NEEDLEMAN, Gaston

0

0

0

0

½

1

1.5

Whatever our own opinions and feelings about the events during the tiebreak,
we could not ignore the story that appeared in a national newspaper of the
host country. It is the daily bread-and-butter task of this site to bring you
chess news from all over the world, and, in the Internet age, to do so quickly,
as it breaks. This has caused distress to many people in the past; we only
mention Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the FIDE team, who were attacked vigorously
by Anatoly Karpov; or the organisers of various events, who have been criticised
by participants. We cannot suppress the reports because they may be detrimental
to the interests of any persons or groups; we can only give these persons or
groups the chance to reply and so contribute to a balanced view.

Which is what we have done in our follow-up stories, and which is what we
do here today, where we bring you reactions to the last installment, which
contained the opinions of Gata Kamsky, Alexander Onischuk, Gastón and
Alejandro Needleman, and other participants, as well as visitors to this site.
We would like to mention that in that article and today we have not filtered
the information to generate a bias in any direction. We only left out gratuitously
rude or abusive letters, which incidentally were usually critical of the GMs.

So without further ado, and to avoid endless editorialising, we hand over
to our readers.

Frederic Friedel

Feedback

Lonnie Kwartler, Chester, NY USA
I have read before of grandmasters getting draws and winning against the one
who is losing games in a tournament. Playing to beat the weakest performer
in an event is nothing new. In the playoff, is it true that if all the games
were draws, that Needleman would have been the only one to not qualify? If
that is the case, it would be like playing poker with every card except
the eight of hearts wild and with that card exposed in one player's hand. The
players would only raise the one they know has that card. If the games of the
main event had been played online, according to your previous articles, the
results of a low rated player who did well would be questioned and even called
the result of cheating. Now the failure of the lowest rated player is attributed,
by some, to cheating. Perhaps, more care should be taken before making a claim
that cheating has taken place.

Jose, New Jersey USA
I have one question, why was the main arbiters name not in bold type like the
others in your story? Was it an attempt to marginalize his views? Was this
because you did not care for his position as it did not conform to yours? It
is quite clear that you favor the kid without any consideration for the difficulties
(financial) involved in being a professional chess player. What took place
was completely understandable under the circumstances of a professional. The
assertion in LA NACION that Felgaer played "to win" in every game
is just propaganda. He did what the rest did. A very one-sided bit of coverage.

Jorma Kovapaa, Helsinki Finland
There have been a lot of strange replies from angry people here about this
Gaston-incident. This simply astonish me, EVERYONE is allowed to play/draw/lose
ANYWAY they like as long as they don't break the rules set. The replies that
say they should be disqualified and the boy should advance: unbelievable! He
had his chance, didn't play well enough, period.

Christian Mambrin, Argentina
I am an Argentinean citizen and as far as I remember I play chess. Just for
fun, no Elo, no ranking. Due to my nationality I am very passionate too, we
usually love as much as we hate. We need heroes and we hate evildoers. Gaston
needs support to develop his skills, and to enjoy his age, without pressure.
I will be praying for that. Just as an addition, for those who are saying that
he is too young. I love the old fashioned way of becoming the World Champion.
I agree in that. But, and I am not trying to compare Gaston with anyone, let
me tell you a story. In 1979, at the age of 15 (he turn to 16 during the competition)
a young boy with a special invitation won a Super Tournament in Banja Luka.
He didn't have a title and his Elo was around 2200 at that time. Do you need
the name? Gary Kasparov.

James Marshall, St. Charles, USA
Having read the articles and interviews, it is clear that FIDE's format is
a joke. The GM's could have had a day to rest at least! To expect full, fighting
chess after so many hours of playing is simply ridiculous. It is a pity the
Needleman took the brunt, but, hey, he really is weaker than the others at
this moment. It is quite clear to me that there was no conspiracy, simply the
brutal reality of qualification made worse by harsh playing conditions. These
are not millionaires like Kasparov, Leko, or Kramnik, who have the luxury to
pick and choose their events and receive appearance fees, these are guys trying
to make a living....in short, sorry kid! Better luck next time! Professional
chess has little room for compassion, and this is a reflection on the conditions
for the players. FIDE tournaments are really becoming more and more of a bad
joke.

Sudharma Karekar, Mumbai, India
What a farce. Ask a thief if he committed a theft and he is bound to say no.
I am surprised at the little kid who has shown such composure. Forget the masters,
this guy is in a league of his own. He may or may not go on to become a Fischer
or a Kasparov, but if he keeps his dignity and humility, he's got my vote.

Geoff Marchant, London, England
My opinion is that the episode with the tie-break is both unfortunate and fortunate!
It shows the participating GMs in a bad light, to the non-chess-player, because
it suggests they needed to 'gang up' against a boy. However given the circumstances
of the tie-break, the players' competitive instincts look understandable to
me. Don't forget they are professional chess players for whom qualification
is a matter of livelihood. Gaston is a boy, true, but for all we know, the
fortunes of young families of the GMs may depend on their qualification? For
the tie-break, the organisers should be held responsible for the controversy.
None of the participants themselves have lost honour or dignity in my opinion.
However, the controversy is good. It has given excellent publicity for the
Championships themselves, especially now that Gaston has been allowed to qualify
as well. I would agree with Frederic Friedel that image and publicity is pretty
important in chess nowadays. What better than such a 'hard luck' story to generate
interest! Finally, good luck to Gaston who has obviously been hiding his light
under a bushel not to be a GM himself already!

Hari Tammineedi, Houston, TX
First of all ChessBase reported the story of Carlos Ilardo. It is not by ChessBase.
Most readers letters reflect that they think it is by ChessBase, and not aware
that the clip is by Carlos Ilardo and that ChessBase is quoting it. I find
it very objectionable, the assuming and persecutory nature of the readers without
having full facts. First pay attention to what you are reading and be open
to all the facts. Before we even try to determine if the GM's ganged up against
the young prodigy, the least we could do is give them a chance to tell their
story, as well as Gaston to tell his side. Then we have the right to accuse
or give our opinion. ChessBase is the best chess site I have come across. So
it has the journalistic responsibility of seeking the truth and upholding it.
I can't point the finger at you, but readers seem to have selectively seen
what they wanted to see from this whole episode.

Tullio Zannoni, Stockholm, Sweden
I am Argentinean born and don’t want get into the discussion about the
intentions of the GM involved. I just want to thanks ChessBase News for the
journalistic courage showed in giving priority to such a controversial incident.
The news gives a well balanced picture about what happened and I strongly support
your policy giving all parties the opportunity to tell their own version. It
is important to have the spirit, showed by ChessBase News, in order keep fair
play alive in chess, as in all other mankind activities. I appreciate very
much to know that it is still an issue for others. I hope all of us can learn
something about what happened that late night at Club Argentino and be reinforced
in our beliefs.

Ray Cornish, Cambridge, UK
I blame the organisers: they just were not prepared for a tiebreak, i.e. they
were unprofessional. And I blame the players: they definitely ganged-up on
Gaston – the crosstable and the round's results do not lie: why try to
beat a player who is already minus? For example: Why would Kamsky fight Gaston
when the kid was +1 and he was at evens? His objective was not to reach +1
but to avoid elimination (i.e. last place). As two players were at -1 when
he started to play the kid, he should have been targeting those -1 players
(Felgar and Milos), and would definitely have offered a draw when in trouble
against Gaston. Surely Gaston would take a draw offer when in a better position
against a 2700 when Gaston was already at +1?

I think all of the GMs have been economical with the truth. Thus I believe
they should be penalised. My idea for a penalty: make them re-qualify, at their
own expense (a penalty that professionals will understand), in a country that
is remote from them all. I agree with all the comments about lack of sportsmanship.
This whole situation is just not good enough. Inviting Gaston is a good idea,
but does not go far enough.

Reid Davis, USA
Concerning the Gaston Needleman foolishness, I think ChessBase and their readers
who took the Argentinian journalist's record of the tiebreak as "the way
it was" should be ashamed of themselves. The journalist in his article
showed not only his incredible bias for the local boy (who was undoubtedly
a hero), but also a critical lack of basic chess tournament strategy. And that
is: to go for wins against weaker rated players and draw the stronger ones.
Going in to the tiebreak (at 9:00 pm after a long day of chess - ending at
3:00 am) the other six players tied for second only needed draws to advance
to the World Cup. Gaston needed a plus score. This, along with the fact that
Gaston was rated 300 Elo points below them set the stage for the other six
players to draw against each other, and try to win against Gaston. Simple,
logical, practical tournament strategy. If Gaston has been five years older
no one would be having this conversation. It's just a case of a reporter trying
to drum up business by making a story out of misunderstanding and ignorance.
It's telling that none of the players (including Gaston and his father) feel
any wrongdoing had occurred. I feel sorry for the GMs who are now labeled as
scoundrels, and hope that someone in a position of authority (certainly not
Kirsan of FIDE who just gave the boy a ticket - setting a dangerous precedent)
can bring some sanity to this situation.

Arjen Oudheusden, Gladwyne, USA
I appreciate your follow up reporting as it provides a much more balanced picture
of the events. It shows that things are not always what they appear to be in
the first place and that one should not pass judgement too quickly. It is clear
that the knock-out formula used at this event was inappropriate. And did Gaston
'earn' his special invitation? Probably not measured by chess strength and
final result, but yes based on enthusiasm of the chess community for this
young and inspiring player!

Shauh Whelan, Nashville, United States
If ChessBase really wanted to give an unbiased account of the tournament and
happenings, they should have spoken with the GM's before they printed the article
from Argentina. This is irresponsible of you all. These Grandmasters who have
now qualified for the WC, are among the best GM's in the world. And before
you start printing stories that bash the best in the world, you need to hear
their side first. This game is their profession and passion. Printing such
an article could have a negative effect on their reputations, especially if
the accusations are incorrect. ChessBase is read all around the world. I don't
care if you do not think it is your responsibility to report the facts.

Having said this, it is unfortunate that the GM's had to play at two o'clock
in the morning and indeed save their energy for a younger player. I agree that
it is the fault of the organizer making them all play that same day. I'm sure
that everyone has jobs they have to go to the next day (I'm speaking of the
organizers) and did not want to have to have more rounds played any following
days. However, they knew the importance of the tournament before they agreed
to host it. They should treat it as an important event and see it through.
Making ANYONE play at 2 o'clock in the morning is absolutely illogical and
ridiculous. They're not playing blitz at Harvard Square in the middle of the
night for 20 bucks a game.

Also, these playoffs shouldn't be quicker games. Do we want the world championship
to be the GM/IM (and in Needleman's case untitled) who is the best at fast
chess? If that is the case, I know plenty of people on the Internet Chess Club
who would own many of these GM's. The playoff games should be slower...if not
just as slow as the regular games played.

Tau, Illinois, USA
What is understandable is GM Gata Kamsky's use of surnames when refering to
his opponents ("with white against Granda... black against Vescovi...")
But what is disgraceful is GM Gata Gamsky's barnyard use of the word "kid"
when refering to Gaston Needleman ("...except with regards to the kid...
I played white against the kid... the kid missed a certain tactic... playing
the kid actually favored the kid... Unfortunately for the kid..."). The
refusal of GM Gata Kamsky to refer to Gaston Needleman by surname either demonstrates
a presence of guilt, or a lack of respect, neither of which is favorable to
the image of chess as a wholesome gentleman's game. His explanation serves
instead to raise suspicions regarding the cold, calculating manner in which
these six GMs qualified for the Championship.

Jimmie B, Virginia, USA
I commend this young fellow (Gaston Needleman) for his response to the situation.
He shows more integrity than those twice his age, obviously. In my opinion
the prearranged draws, like it or not, is part of the strategic decision making
process at the top-level. As Kamsky said, the conditions must change, not the
rules on the chessboard. I am glad to hear that FIDE has offered Gaston an
invitation. In the future if the organizers don't like the possibilities of
the results they ought not to make such a tournament where 6/7 players qualify
and set the young man up for such a disappointment. I mean the players in this
case were just the pawns on the chessboard being pushed to do what is inevitably
the most logical thing to do. Hurray for Gaston and Boo to the organizers!

John Bosco, USA
While I have a lot of empathy for the perceived way Gaston Needleman was treated
by the GMs at the recent playoffs in Argentina, I absolutely do not blame the
GMs involved. Life is a pragmatic game, and these GMs took the most pragmatic
move they can make. They are professionals and their livelihood and ability
to take care of their families depends on their success in chess. Gaston is
still but a young man and an amateur for that matter, so it is only logical
that the grandmasters would ensure their security by eliminating the only weak
link in the play offs. Moreover, Gaston has already achieved a lot by getting
to play with so many grandmasters at once. It is only in chess that this can
happen. Can you imagine Tiger Woods having a playoff with an amateur golf player?
Or Lennox Lewis getting in the ring with the olympics heavyweight gold medalist?
So please, leave the GMs alone. It is already enough humiliation that they
have to have a playoff with an amateur!

Shivkumar Shivaji, Mountain View, CA, USA
I think the GMs conducted the tiebreaks fairly. After all, one has to put his
own interest of qualification first. If all the GMs just required an equal
score to qualify (given that they had better tiebreaks), why should they risk
their qualification by doing otherwise. If Needleman started winning a few
games early on, this would force the remaining players to play for a win in
all their games. This did not happen except for the win against Milos. I cannot
understand why everyone thinks that the GMs should play for a win against each
other given that 1) this could result in them not qualifying; and 2) they do
not get any prize for winning besides the coveted prize of qualification. Regarding
the ganging up against Needleman, after Needleman has lost a game the GMs would
be MORE than happy to draw against him as it ensures their qualification. He
lost the games because he HAD to play for a win against the GMs in order to
qualify. Thus, one can say that Needleman was FORCED to gang up against the
GMs.

In tennis, players make millions of dollars in every tournament. This is not
the case with chess. Why then should grandmasters be required to play out games
and hurt their chances of qualification for no benefit? Probably the tiebreak
rules need to be blamed for the lack of fight among the GMs. Its great that
Needleman got a qualification spot anyway!

Carlito J. Agner, Holland, MI
I think we are all missing the main issue here regarding the GM's "ganging"
up on young Gaston. The main issue I see here is the moral duty of the GM title
as well as the title of being a "professional" to chess. Not to Needleman
but to CHESS. That duty is to play chess to the best of your abilities in fairness.
A four-mover is not a game of chess. It should not be counted as a game, it
was a default. And that is what is lost here because the GMs did not perform
to the expectations of the respected and titled GM. What came up instead were
personal motives. A professional aspires his work to be the best is trained
to do so. Those GM should be ashamed on themselves.

See also

11/28/2018 – The moment we've all been waiting for! Live games (for Premium members) from the 2018 World Championship match in London. Every two games will be followed by a rest day until Game 12 (if necessary) on November 26th which will be preceded by an additional rest day. All rounds start at 15:00 UT (London time) / 16:00 CEST / 10:00 EST. If needed there would be a rapid tiebreak match on Wednesday, November 28th. | Photos: Patricia Claros

See also

8/27/2018 – Live games and commentary from Saint Louis! Fabiano Caruana, Magnus Carlsen and Levon Aronian tied for first place, while Caruana also tied for fourth place in the Grand Chess Tour standings with Wesley So, forcing a playoff match to be held on Tuesday. | Graphic: Saint Louis Chess Club

Video

Former World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik liked to play the French and once described it as a 'difficult and dangerous opening'. But in this 60 minutes video IM Andrew Martin suggests an aggressive and little-used idea of the renowned attacking player GM Viktor Kupreichik to counter the French: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Be3!?. Andrew Martin uses the games of Kupreichik to show why this line could catch many French aficionados unprepared and is very dangerous for Black. Attacking players will love this line and the unusual complications that it promotes.

"Simple yet aggressive!" Enjoy this new exciting DVD by Simon Williams. Let the famouns Grandmaster from England show you how to gain a very exciting yet well founded opening game with the London System (1.d4 d5 2.Bf4).